Russian Patriarch Kirill: A Case of Religion Overreaching

The political separation of “Church and State” in U.S. constitutional law, a doctrine that is of jurisprudence (judicial decision) rather than theology and thus does not straddle and therefore demarcate the political and religious domains as qualitatively distinct from a neutral standpoint. Furthermore, the question of what makes the religious domain distinct (and unique) from all others is the pole from which a religious functionary’s (or religionist) leap into the political garden from the Garden of Eden can be detected. The trouble worsens if the criteria from one domain in imposed and overlaid in the overreaching into another domain, as if the criteria that is determinative in one domain were valid in another. In fact, the eclipsing itself of the other’s own criteria on their own “turf” is unethical. The legitimate sovereignty of a domain’s own criteria in that domain over criteria indigenous to other domains yet superimposed renders any supervening overreaching as both erroneous—as in going off-sides in football (soccer)—and unethical because the criteria indigenous to a given domain should not be disrespected within their own domain. In other words, encroaching is presumptuous. If these ideas strike the reader as novel, even strange perhaps, then I am keeping within the confines of my mission in writing, as I look to a new dawn in which the ideational tyranny of hitherto reigning yet questionable assumptions ist zerstört because they have been discredited, which is not to say that every extant assumption should be eviscerated and expunged for lack of substance. Unfortunately, Russia’s Patriarch Kirill, the head of Russia’s Orthodox Church, went out on a tree limb, far from his religious tree’s trunk, by formulating and spreading “revisionist propaganda to justify the war in Ukraine” while the invasion was underway.[1] The history and legitimacy of a bygone Russian empire (not the U.S.S.R.) properly belong to the political rather than to the religious domain. Being schooled in theology does not give even a high religious functionary the knowledge on which to presume to be an expert in political history and international relations. The resentment in the E.U. and U.S. at the patriarch’s intrusion into a domain that is not an extension of the religious domain was not merely from opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but also from an intuitive sense that the domains of religion/theology and politics/government are distinct and thus require different knowledge-sets and have their own respective criteria and distinctiveness.

The full essay is at "Russian Patriarch Kirill."

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro, “Oil, Cod, Kirill: Friction Points Emerge in New E.U. Sanctions Against Russia,” Euronews.com, 26 June, 2026.

Unenforced Law: The International Court of Justice Declares Israeli Occupation Illegal

On July 19, 2024, the UN’s court rendered an opinion to the UN’s General Assembly on the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories including East Jerusalem. The Israeli government wasted no time in publicly dismissing the International Court of Justice even though the UN had created Israel. As if the creature is greater than its creator, which is a rather unbiblical view, Israel’s prime minister had dismissed two earlier verdicts of that court against Israel’s military incursion into Gaza, which resulted in the deaths of more than 35,000 and displaced over a million Palestinian residents. What are we to make of international law itself? Can we rightly call it law even though no enforcement mechanism necessarily exists for it? By necessarily, I mean something more than a voluntary coalition of willing countries, which of course cannot be counted upon.

At the end of 2022, the UN’s General Assembly requested that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) “render an advisory opinion” concerning “the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures.”[1] A year and a half later, the ICJ issued its landmark opinion. ICJ President Nawaf Salam said the court had found that Israel’s “continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal. . . . The State of Israel is under the obligation to bring an end to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible.”[2] Accordingly, settlement activity should end and existing settlements should be given up in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. The court also mandated the payment of reparations to Palestinians for damages caused by the occupation. The ICJ indicated that Israel’s “policies and practices amount to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” and that Israel was “not entitled to sovereignty” there.[3] Additionally, according to the BBC, “the court said Israeli restrictions on Palestinians in the occupied territories constituted ‘systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin’” and Israel “had illegally exploited the Palestinians’ natural resources and violated their right to self-determination.”[4]

In reaction to the exhaustive opinion on which the court had been engaged since early 2023, Israel’s prime minister called the decision one “of lies.”[5] It is precisely on account of such jejune denial (frankly, that could be expected from a teenager) that international law and courts are necessary. Incidentally, lies, or fabrications, pertain to facts, whereas the court issued an opinion. Netanyahu’s category mistake may be indicative of a knee-jerk reaction. His other category mistake was to reference Jerusalem as the homeland of Jews, whereas the court’s opinion pertains to Israel and thus Israelis. A religious claim is distinct from a political or legal one, and the court (and the General Assembly) were solely concerned with the latter. The court also held that governments helping Israel in its occupation are also culpable, and the United States also promptly criticized the court’s decision, which was, at the very least, inconvenient politically.[6]

In issuing a judicial opinion for the General Assembly, the court noted the nonbinding nature of the decision. But is any international law, even if in the form of a verdict by an international court, binding on any sovereign country?  The nonbinding feature of the court’s opinion is thus a red herring, sidestepping the proverbial invisible elephant in a room. The sheer fecklessness of international law itself begs the question of whether it is indeed law or something less, such as a guideline that governments can take or leave at will. To be sure, even immaturely dismissing a mere guideline as exhaustively undertaken—at least in terms of time—cogently (i.e., internal consistency) reasoned, and complete as that of the ICJ here is (or ought to be) blameworthy. Yet given the severity of the infractions committed by Israel in its longstanding occupation, something stronger than a guideline is warranted. So we have arrived face to face with the question of whether a law that cannot be enforced is nonetheless a law.

Kant refers to the law of reason owing to the necessity of reason. Two plus two simply cannot equal five. That the answer is four has necessity. So too does law, according to Kant. But a law does not have necessity if it cannot be enforced—if people can ignore a law with impunity. It can of course be objected that the kind of necessity that a fact of reason enjoys in the human mind does not apply to the sort of social reality that covers social organization. But it contracts reason to say, we’re passing a law and we know that it cannot and will not be enforced. In other words, to claim that something is a law and furthermore that no enforcement mechanism exists or can be counted on nullifies the something being a law.

Unless or until there is such a thing as international law, governments will be free to accept or reject the opinions of international courts as just that: opinions. Unless or until national sovereignty is qualified rather than absolute, governments will be subject to might, as that of Ukraine has been subject to Russia’s might since Russia began its invasion by taking Crimea in 2014. Indeed, Israel acquired Palestinian land as a result of the 1967 war, and the Israeli government was conveniently taking this result of might not only as right, but also as if it were a fact of reason immune to the error of falsification.

In the want of political development beyond the nation-state, the global system will remain stymied in a Hobbesian state of nature in spite of having an institutional infrastructure. Without international law, it is actually rather amazing that international relations are not more chaotic than they are. Even were there a global federation of nations, Kant claims that peace would merely be possible, rather than probable. I submit that it would be more probable were the federal level of such a federation to have the military (and economic) means to enforce international law. Without any such means, the UN cannot claim to have or much less to enforce international law. Heading into 2024, the governmental heads of Russia and Israel knew this only too well, and thus could exploit the common misconception that there is such a thing as international law.

See: "Israel Legalizes Illegal Settlements on Palestinian Land."

---

1. “Request for Advisory Opinion,” General Assembly resolution 77/247 of 30 December 2022.
2. Raffi Berg, “UN Top Court Says Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territories Is Illegal,” BBC, July 20, 2021.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Kanishka Singh, “US Criticizes ICJ Opinion on Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territories,” Reuters, July 20, 2024.

Climate Change: Human Failure or Divine Will?

First Reformed (2017) contains fundamental ideas concerning the human condition and wrestles with the relationship between religion and politics.  Ideas play a significant role in the film, hence it can be used in support of the thesis that film is a viable medium in which to make philosophical (and theological) ideas transparent and derive dramatic tension from clashing ideas. In this film, the ideas that clash concern the role of religion in the political issue of climate change—or is that issue primarily religious?

The full essay is at "First Reformed."